>> joining us is our guest reporters along with tom donahue of the u.s. chamber of commerce. >> let's talk about the obama presidency which has come along with since the financial crisis but the regulations in most areas of the business sector, many businesses are crying foul. what grade would you give him on his handling of the economy? >> first of all, you have to give the president little bit of cover. he took over the economy at a very difficult time. we had worked with president bush on the tarp funds but the first step out of the box was to fail to get a stimulus bill out

of the house. at that time, our view is that without regard to what the action was in the united states that you were leaning across to the world the possibility of a global depression and that is when the chamber stepped in and help him to get the stimulus package which we knew would have problems. in the beginning, he stepped in it a tough time. i believe that the president's efforts to drive a health-care bill that turns out to be extraordinarily expensive and with a great deal of new regulation, 258 new bureaucratic groups, and then to push very hard on a bill he get out of the house but could not get out of the senate on the question of the environmental side. that bill, if it had passed, would have been an extraordinary

problem for the economy and not the right thing to do and there was a lot of regulations with it. the next issue was not the president issue but the dodd- frank deal which was done in anger. it was done by people who were necessarily frustrated. it will add 255 or more regulations and wondered 88 to justice regulations. if you go back to look at other issues that we have done that had 15 regulations, it would take two or three years so you can and magic. finally, there is a major effort to play to the unions on card check and the other issues which did not work. as a new president, i give him a

c +. some of the comes from the environment. we don't do presidential politics. we do the house and senate but the industry and was not well served by the people who were assisting the president to move on some of these issues and the build himself a pretty big wall that he has to get over on those issues. >> with the economy he inherited, we are looking at 18 months and 2.9 million jobs. should he have done more? we have more job creation? if you look at the chamber building, we have signs the side of a railroad car that say jobs, jobs, jobs. we have to do three things in this country. we need growth in without growth you cannot do the other two. we need jobs because when you create more jobs, you get people

off public assistance and they paid taxes and things work out better. we also have to pay attention to our expenditure issues in this country and that comes up at the end of this year. it is fundamentally based on entitlements. if we could look at those three things, things could get better around here. we creating jobs? i just outlined all four of those issues that are really compare -- compelling american companies to set on their cash. we also have a tax base in this country, the only major industrialized country, that does not have a tax base where you pay in one place or the other but not both places. you need a territorial tax system. if you make a lot of money in china, you pay them in china or you pay them here but not in

both places. we need to fix the tax base. the president has meant a lot of efforts on regulation but the interesting part is that he has done nothing to talk about the regulatory explosion in health care, dodd-frank, environmental -- he is looking at the regulations from years past while we have created the largest single explosion and regulation in modern history. >> let's talk about the health care law. it had an interesting week on the supreme court. will it end up being repealed? >> i think it will come out one of three ways and all the choices you will end up with the same reality. either it will be sustained as written or it will be partially changed because the court will respond to the petition of the plaintiffs about the individual mandate or because they decide

to do that, get rid of the whole health care bill, then where are you? the administration i'm sure would come forward and say we should go to the congress and democrats and republicans will probably want to keep important things like letting kids to stay in parents' health care deal and not have them stop the ability to keep people off health care because of pre-existing conditions. the reason we get into a health care bill is because everybody in the country knew we had to fix it. the only thing is, we fixed it in a way everybody was throwing parts into this bill and we will have to take a long look --

even if it is sustained, the administration and congress will have to face up to the cause, the complexity, and the conflicts of the bill. >> with 47 million uninsured, there will be real costs. >> the whole argument in selling it -- there is not going to be more cost. you could make some rational feeling on that. the real cost and the health- care system was treating all of these people in the emergency rooms or only when they got to critical illness. therefore, the argument was that if we put these people under some type of coverage so they could get early care, you can go places other than the emergency rooms, we would drive down the critical care cost they were consuming and we would be in better shape. i think we are all beginning to

see that while the argument had some value, we're still going to have to provide all that care and everybody was pulled in. the pharmaceutical guys made a deal that was $10 billion per year and i went back for another dip that came from the medical devices. it was a negotiation that leaves everybody in a difficult position. no matter what happens, whatever the choices of the court which i think will be instructive, we will all be back in the health- care business and a big hurry. >> -- in a big hurry. >> people talk about the lame- duck issue with the big defense cuts coming in huge tax increases and the debt that will bump up against the ceiling.

people think the way congress has penalties deficit talks has been dangerous. are you fearful that we could be in a chaotic period? >> the chamber is a big organization and all the groups in the chamber have a 2012 plan. they've got in place and i have been bringing the group leaders in to say we have a plan but we will have another plan from april 1 of this year to april 1 of next year. let's look now at the time line of what goes on april to april. we will finish the primaries into awe will enter general election, and then we will have a decision from the supreme court of the united states on health care and then we will pursue, through all the conventions and elections and

that sort of thing and we will have an election and then we will have 1, 2, or 3 lame duck sessions. you just articulated why. the bush tax cuts just expired. . the question raised about defense and the budget and sequestration -- my opinion is that is not happening. i think leon panetta is strong and experienced enough to make a deal that says i will get there but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. we will also have to look at the other issues of expenditures. all that happens in a very short period time from the election to the end of the year. you either keep it all together

and take a timeout to go for christmas but you'll have to face all these issues. then the congress seats before the president does but after january 20. whether the president is, there will be changes in faces and people always will still have another period of time when we will be finishing up on those issues. we have to operate quickly. we have to be fast. we have to be prepared. we have to have adequate access to as many of these things that will happen at the same time. we have to think about this in a very strategic way. do you think for the next year that we can do all that without any unforeseen activities? in the arab world, in the americas?

in korea? you pick it. there are probably 12 issues you could look at. what happens if we get three of those in there? we are a global organization. we are trying to think more about playing chess than playing checkers. >> it is hard to imagine that there will be all sorts of bruised feelings after the election. it is difficult to think of them coming together. that by't know embracing 4 k yes. -- for chaos. these issues are pushed in stone and the base number is in stone, too. there is going to be a necessity for all servants of this country to come together and do some of this. i extended it long enough that it may get pushed forward a little bit.

thos issues will be dealt with. >> you have the xm banquet authorization and commerce has been very active. what is the chamber doing and will there be changes? >> jackson bannick will go away. the reason it will go way is the russians are now officially members of the wto. every other country will get the benefits of the commitments that russia had to make to join the union accept united states so long as jackson bannick is in place. everybody knows we will find a time and debate it and raise issues about russia -- >> are we talking near term?

>> soon, i'm not sure. i will not put a time frame audit but a longtime friend is silly because it will cost as economic value. exim bank? >> it has helped american companies compete around the growth -- around the globe. it provided a profit last year to our government, about $800 million. people don't usually see that because those who report on it only report profit. it has helped us compete in the sale of airplanes and tractors and all kinds of things. we had some pressure from a couple of airlines about this. they said it might help people sell at a lower rate overseas

than they could hear. that same airline just got an $83 million deal from the exim and now everybody will talk about this. depending what day it is, is there a deal how much? people that use this for political purposes and don't recognize what effect it will have on american jobs, american datasets, are making a very serious mistake and we will not let it pass. >> you are watching cspan's "newsmakers" program with tom donahue, the ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce. mr. donahue, the reporters toured this conversation with

grading the president. how would you grade the democratic house and the republican senate? >> it is hard to break the democratic house because they don't do a lot. that is because they made a strategy that with 23 democratic senators at risk in the election that they should not vote on a lot of things. it might be the same things. this is the third year they will not vote a budget. i will not break down because there is not a lot left to grade. in the republican house, you have two issues. they have passed 30 pieces of legislation that attempts to address economic issues. knowing it would be hard to get anything done in the democratic senate. at the same time, there have debatesme internet scencine

within the house and ee progress should be made in resolving those points so that when we had the issue i described of the post-election excitement, they will work closely together. i will give both houses a strong vote of appreciation for what they did on the trade bills. and a number of other issues that were in the nation's interests. >> can you tell us about the chamber's involvement in the general elections? how will you be involved this year? >> two into related questions -- first, politics comes before

policy. put the right people in the seats and you're liable to get a better result. therefore, i respect the people of the other side of my views that run out and spend a lot of money to try to get their representatives. in the past, the platform was left to the parties and not too many other people particularly on the business side. businesses give some contributions but there is not an organized effort. we will support democrats and republicans. >> what is your budget? >> i have been around a long

time and i'm smart enough not to do that. the press reported that in the last effort will spend more than $50 million. i don't know whether that is correct. i consider this a more important election. >> you had said earlier this week in talking about job growth that it needs to come from the private sector. you mentioned $2 trillion just sitting on the books. what has to be done for job creation to come from this massive amount of money that is sitting there? >> a couple of things -- there is great uncertainty in the business community as they are waiting to see what happens in the election. if you listen to what the administration has been saying, that what they will do on taxes

and regulation and, in fact, some punitive action against individual sectors of the economy, then you want to wait and see what will happen. when you look at the question on health care which is a massive cost and hiring people here. when you look at dodd-frank, we got all this stuff in front of us although there have been some improvements in recent days, and you look at the epa thing which is in a hold, recognizing that as soon as the election is over, all that could roll out the door. all of the labour legislation that we know and regulation that is bare, if we could simplify some of that, if we could assure people on what pace this needs to be done and if we can deal

with the tax portion -- there are four examples. if you look at the high bracket of the tax side, i make a lot of money, forget that a minute. the good of all small companies, midsize companies that operated under certain provisions that get this great income and put lots of it right back into the businesses. they will get a much higher rate. these issues will be very complicated. this is not the argument that we should take 5.5% on the top rate. remember, it is 5% over a few years on medicare and the bush deal. it is another five -- they are talking about what the president

has been calling for and the buffet deal and all that sort of state and then as a result, all the state taxes go up and state taxes than cells are going up within the state. you could make an argument you're talking about 20%. if you up those taxes 20%, good luck to this economy. >> you talk about the uncertainty in the economy and a willow is be on certainty. you had the tax codes around the world and immigration reform and still there is trillions of dollars. is that money going to sit there until health care is resolved? it could be years and years. >> no, it's not because some of it will be spent overseas.

this is to sell to the 95% of people around the world that we want to sell something to. they don't live here. every time you do that, you create jobs in america. i think that is number one and there needs to be some assurance of the falsely and commitment of the readers that the white house is about the private sector and the role the private sector and the role of government. the point i made -- the people in government can do some things to level the playing field where we are going to do business and helping a temporary way but real jobs, can only be put in place by the private sector. everybody has to demonstrate belief in that. >> there has been all this bipartisan proposals that have had 75% spending cuts and 25%

tax increases. governor romney has said he would not support tax increases. is that a mistake? >> here is my view -- if there is a real deal that addresses the questions of jobs, growth, and expenditures, there will be some taxes in that. they come in many different ways. ministration has made some good points that you could adjust taxes by eliminating some deductions or credits. it does not necessarily mean you raise the rates. another fundamental reality is 52% of people in america do not pay any income tax. by the way, i don't think we solve our financial issues by going back and taxing them.

i think every person outside the party line should pay some taxes. i don't care whether it is 100 or $200, want them to be at risk that somebody can raise it. half the people in the country have no risk of anybody raising their income tax, what do they care? >> do you think you pay enough in the context? >> i pay a lot of money in income-tax. it is a helluva lot higher than what i observe some people who have recently supported on their income-tax -- is big. >> tom donahue is the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce and thank you for joining us on the 100th anniversary of the u.s. chamber. >> very pleased to be here. >> we will be right back. back with our two guests reporters.

reputation and power in washington are very important. donahue possible role in washington? >> i don't think it can be overstated. he speaks for many in the business community and this kind of a controversial, pugnacious character. he made clear they will all set aside wide -- sidelines for this election. he calls a more important than the last election and in my double down on spending for these for congressional seats. they are deaf in a group to watch on spending. he has been at that chamber for 15 years and the chamber has multiplied by five. he is a power player here. there is a lot of money that will be found in this election.

there's a long list of things he would like to get accomplished in the next administration. the chambers spent a lot of money to see what they could get done. >> what did you learn today? there are a lot of things on their agenda going forward. they will keep pushing forward. a lot of washington -- >> u.s. about taxes and he said he could foresee tax increases. >> that is such a polarizing issue but a lot of the business groups have said we want there to be a deal. we want the uncertainty to go way of for a by supported bipartisan deal, there will have to be texas. thomas taxes can people stomach?

that is the kind of thing that will be slugged out on the hill. he said the business community will not torpedo a plan just because it has no revenue in it. >> many people have said they will not raise taxes one nickel. during the presidential debates, spending cuts versus tax increases. it will be interesting to see of this comes into play what the chamber does and what pressure is put on to ensure tax increases are raised to some extent. a lot of people are firmly against it. you asked about jackson vannick. >> that is a law that took place during the cold war. the soviet union did not allow people to travel openly due to religious freedom. it is now still in place. it limits free-trade.

the u.s. will benefit from lower terrace - tariffs but not other issues. the chamber wants it repealed and mr. down a few tanks -- and mr. donahue thinks something was done away with but it is still in place. >> he said politics comes before policy. we have to put the people in the seats we want to get our agenda accomplished. that explains why they will be hand picking candidates for congress. they feel that as important as rolling back leg -- regulations. what else did you hear today? >> i think his description of the president was interesting. they had this real combative relationship between the white house and the chamber of commerce. he gave them a lot of credit for the environment heal